Transportation Commission Chairman Samuel J. Taylor welcomed everyone and called the regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission to order at 9:18 a.m.

Approval of MinutesCommissioner Larkin made a motion to approve the minutes of the Commission Meeting held on October 15, 1993 in Salt Lake City. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weston and it passed unanimously.

Service AwardsRoger Williams, District 2 Lab, 30 Years - Joe Kammerer presented Roger Williams from District 2 Materials Lab to the Commission for his 30 year service award. Joe said his experience with Roger has been very good. Roger has been in the lab for his entire career and he, quite frankly, enjoys it and is very good at it. His hobbies are generated by and focused on the area of geology and pit surveys, etc. Roger has been involved the last 30 years with the construction of I-15 and I-80.

Outside of UDOT, Roger is very involved in the Boy Scouts and has received the Silver Beaver Award. He said in our society now Boy Scouts has a great value, and Roger performs a function and fulfills a responsibility for boys whose fathers may not be there.

Joe said he has learned a great deal from Roger over the last couple of years working with him. Looking back over the pit surveys which Roger did over the years, things were done right, and it is very reassuring.

Commissioner Lewis presented Roger a certificate for his 30 years of service, plus a packet from which to choose his service award. He expressed the Commission's appreciation for his dedicated service to the department.

Financial Statements - September 1993Max Ditlevsen reported on the Financial Statements dated September 30, 1993. Three months into the current fiscal year our revenue picture is still holding strong with our Actual Revenues being $61.4 million. In comparison to estimates to this time, that amount is $3 million ahead, and it is $4 million ahead of Actual Revenues to this time last year. Max indicated staff generally waits through the end of November and into December before considering any revisions to the estimates.

In Federal Reimbursements, the Actuals are $29.3 million. The note to the report indicates the anticipated amount to this date would be around $35 million. Max noted it's not unusual--in fact, more normal than not--to have our Accrued Unbilled totals increase through the summer construction season, then we process contract modifications to bring that back down, so that will equalize over time.

Regarding the highway bond proceeds, we had an authorization of $12 million, but only issued $10 million worth of bonds, and $9 million of that would be devoted to the Bangerter Highway construction.

In Aeronautics Pass-Thur Funds, our standard revenue estimate of $10 million is too low; we have already received $12.5 million. He has spoken with Phil Ashbaker, Director of Aeronautics, regarding this matter, and Phil anticipates the actual pass-thru funds may be in the $20-$22 million range this year, due primarily to the construction program at the Salt Lake International Airport.

Referring to Expenditures, Max indicated the notes provided to the Financial Statements are very general in nature. He said he has asked his staff to try to address the variances in more detail, because they are presently trying to explain an actual expenditure against what is normally an even distribution of budget across months. They are going to see if they can take a historical look, or revisit our allocation month-to-month, to bring that more in line with what actually will happen on an expenditure pattern to make the Statements more meaningful.

For instance, in Support Services they know we have delays in receiving billings from the Department of Facilities and Construction Management on our headquarters building operation, so our budget figures ought to track when we expect those to be received rather than just on an even allocation. The same thing applies to Data Processing where we have typically shown larger expenditures of capital equipment toward the end of the fiscal year. In the Construction area the Statements have basically shown an even distribution on the budget side, but obviously we anticipate our expenditures in the construction months to be heavy, and that hasn't been reflected in our allocations. It will probably take them until the November Statements to have that fully worked out.

Referring to the Fund Balance, the bulk of the money which has come in on bonds, nearly $11 million, is shown as a Reservation. The Unreserved Fund Balance, after B & C allocations, is $30.2 million, and we currently have obligations against that amount of $26.8 million.

Max said they hope to come to the Commission in a couple of months with other suggestions on presenting the financial information which can be more meaningful in performance indicators. That is a project he has going in his office.

Commissioner Weston thanked Max for the good report. He made a motion to approve the Financial Statements as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

The Financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 1993, and included as part of these minutes, approved.

Mayberry Property Scenic Easement, Transcript of Public MeetingChairman Taylor distributed to each of the Commissioners a copy of the transcript of the public meeting the Commission had asked Grand County Council to hold regarding to the Enhancement Project known as the Mayberry Orchard Property Scenic Easement. He asked the Commissioners to carefully review the transcript--which also included written testimony which came in following the meeting, and petitions--for final resolution of whether to award the $350,000 Enhancement Funds for the project at the November 19, Commission Meeting.

Commissioner Weston asked Chairman Taylor what was the general consensus at the meeting. He replied there were many people in favor and many people opposed to the project.

Chairman Taylor commented that six of the seven members of the Grand County Council were placed on the ballot for recall action at the election which took place the previous Tuesday. This Enhancement Project was a major bone of contention in that recall election. All six of the Councilmen survived the recall action by a good margin, and he felt that was a bottom line indication the people of Grand County basically favored what the County Council is trying to do with this project. He noted members of the Grand County Council would be at the next Commission Meeting to plead their case to proceed with the project.

Right-of-Way Settlements over $25,000Bob Fox reported there were two right-of-way settlements for the Commission's consideration. The first settlement is a housekeeping function on the Brigham to Mantua project. It involves purchasing 13 acres of property from Brigham City, located between the reservoir area and the old highway, for wetland mitigation for a total settlement of $34,225.

Bob commented he was very pleased with the Commission's support of the Department allowing property owners options as to what they can do with their property instead of just telling them we are taking their property. He referred to a $225,000 settlement on 9000 South which was brought before the Commission at a previous meeting. We totally took that property because the people did not want the cost to cure and they didn't like what was going to happen to their residence. Now, by taking that total property, we have an offer for it which nets the Department $25,000. By giving some choices we are getting some better choices ourselves.

This same situation exists on the second settlement which is on the Casa Negra project. It is for a commercial property for a settlement of $140,800. Tomas Technologies, the property owner, felt we were totally destroying their commercial building by taking all their parking in front and they would have to redo their entrance, etc, so we offered to take the entire property. After considering the offer, they decided they wished to take the partial settlement and make the modifications. We allowed the owner options on the property and they ended up being very satisfied.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to approve the two right-of-way settlements. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weston and it passed unanimously that:

The option approved to purchase Parcels 13:A, 13:ST and 23:EC, Project NM-0091(2)4, Brigham to Mantua, located at 650 South 253 North Main Street, Mantua, from owner Brigham City Corporation, in the amount of $34,225; and

Planning and Programming - Increase in FundingI-80, Low to DelleI-80, Low StructuresClint Topham reported the engineer's estimate on the I-80, Low to Delle project is $8,350,000; the amount programmed was $7,250,000. In order to advertise the project an increase of $1.1 million would have to be approved.

He explained the Commission should also know, though, that a bridge replacement which was to be part of that project has been removed from the project and will be done as a stand-alone project, so the true cost increase is an additional $1.4 million over the $1.1 million increase being requested. He noted an additional $1.4 million would also need to be programmed in the future to do the bridge project.

Commissioner Larkin asked staff to explain the reasons for the cost increase. Tom Smith explained one of the reasons is because of the variations of the pavement. Originally they had planned on removing two inches of material from the surface and replacing it, but when they got into the pavement design of the project they found they had to go more extensive than what was anticipated. They are removing more material and, therefore, replacing more, and in one section where it goes under the bridge, they are totally replacing the pavement. Another reason for the increase is the cost for using SHRP materials for the new pavement mixes.

Dave Christensen of Structures explained the work on the eastbound and westbound structures over the railroad tracks at Low was the work which had been removed from the project and would be done as a separate project. That project would include maintenance work on the westbound structure to close some expansion joints, place a membrane on it, and paint the structural steel, which amounts to about $260,000. They feel the maintenance work will give it an additional 15 to 20 years of life. However, the eastbound structure would be totally replaced. The deck and girders on it are in extremely bad condition. He explained that if they were to do the same maintenance work on it as on the westbound structure it would additionally require totally replacing the deck, and by the time that work was completed it would be almost the same cost as a new bridge, but it would still be old and would not meet any of the seismic criteria currently required by FHWA. Structures, therefore, felt it appropriate to totally replace that eastbound structure as soon as possible.

Dave said it's one of those strange anomalies that the bridges were built by the same contractor on the same project at the same general time of year; one is deteriorating greatly, and the other is not.

Howard Richardson asked Dave if all the structure work had been removed from the Low to Delle project, and he replied that project still included some maintenance work on three other bridges. Tom Smith interjected the reason the Low structures were removed from the project was because of the length of time it is taking to get agreements with the railroad companies to do the work. He noted they had been working on the agreements since July and very little progress has been made.

Clint suggested if the Commission desires to approve the increased cost of the Low to Delle project, they may also wish to program the $1.4 million for the bridge project at this same time, or staff could come back to them for a separate action in the future when the project is actually ready.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to approve the $1.1 million increase on the Low to Delle project, plus $1.4 million for the structures at Low. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

Increase in Interstate Maintenance Funds approved on Project IM-0080-2(43)60, I-80, Low to Delle, in the amount of $1.1 million, added to the $7,250,000 already approved, for a total project cost of $8,350,000; and

$1.4 million in Interstate Maintenance Funds approved for structure rehabilitation/replacement on structures over railroad tracks at Low.

WFRC Long Range Transportation Plan/conformity FindingDoug Hattery of Wasatch Front Regional Council stated they were responsible for preparing the long range transportation plans for the Salt Lake and Ogden areas. They have had extensive discussion over the last year trying to update the plan and address the factors and requirements of ISTEA, and they feel they have accomplished that. They wanted to get a plan update approved before the new air quality conformity regulations become effective, and those should be issued next month.

He said one of the requirements of the long range plan is that it have a financial plan which shows how they will be able to construct all the projects included in the plan and there was much discussion about that. They did assume they would see a continued growth in State gas tax; historic trends support that.

They also need to show that the long range plan conforms with State air quality plans. They have done the analysis, and included in the agenda packets is a copy of that analysis of the air quality conformity determination. Their understanding from the Federal Highway Administration is that the Transportation Commission needs to concur in their findings that their long range plan does conform with State air quality plans.

He continued their analysis went through the interim guidelines from EPA and DOT and found their plan does meet the criteria and does support the achievement of national air quality standards. It does expedite or encourage implementation of traffic control measures included in the State's air quality plan that contributes to reductions in emissions and doesn't increase the frequency of air quality violations in the future. He requested Commission endorsement of their long range plan and conformity finding.

Commissioner Weston referred to Table 3 which indicated the area and the type of pollutant and the scheduled percentage of reduction proposal and asked about the locations listed. Mr. Hattery explained that different pollutants have different non-attainment areas. Carbon monoxide is supposedly a localized problem, so only Salt Lake City and Ogden City are listed as non-attainment areas. Ozone is a non-attainment area wide, so Salt Lake and Davis Counties as a whole are listed.

It was noted the conformity finding report in the agenda packets did not include all the pages and Commissioner Lewis requested that a complete copy be obtained from WFRC and distributed to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to adopt the resolution, which means the Commission endorses the Salt Lake and Ogden area long range transportation plan and concurs with Wasatch Front Regional Council's findings as to meeting the air quality standards and the financial plan standards. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weston and it passed unanimously that:

WHEREAS, the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) is the officially designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Salt Lake and Ogden Urbanized Areas and has the responsibility of developing Transportation Plans for both Areas, and

WHEREAS, the Salt Lake and Ogden Technical Advisory Committees, the Utah Department of Transportation, and the Utah Transit Authority have been involved in developing and updating the Transportation Plans, and

WHEREAS, the Transportation Plans recommend improvements to the highway and transit systems over a 20-year period, and

WHEREAS, the Statewide Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality includes transportation control measures for reducing air pollutant emissions for the Salt Lake and Ogden Area, and

WHEREAS, the Long Range Transportation Plans have been reviewed for conformity and consistency with the SIP, and

WHEREAS, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) requires that Long Range Transportation Plan include a Financial Plan and address fifteen factors, and

WHEREAS, Financial Plans have been developed and the fifteen ISTEA factors addressed for both areas, and

WHEREAS, the WFRC has adopted and followed public involvement procedures to allow citizens, public agencies, private transportation providers, and other parties reasonable opportunity for involvement, review and comment.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission:

1. Endorses the Salt Lake and Ogden Area Transportation Plans,

2. concurs wit the WFRC finding that the Long Range Transportation Plans conform to and are consistent with the SIP and support the SIP's purpose of meeting air quality standards, and

3. Concurs with the WFRC finding that the Long Range Transportation Plans include reasonable Financial Plans and address the fifteen factors identified in ISTEA.

Amendment to MAG 1994 Transportation Improvement ProgramClint Topham explained that Mountainlands Association of Governments has approved their long range plan, similar to the WFRC, but he understands their conformity analysis has not been completed and submitted to the Department, so they are not ready to bring the long range plan to the Commission today.

He continued that they have, however, updated their Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). He referred to a previous Commission Meeting when the Commission approved the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the projects that MAG intended to do were shaded on that report, and we told the Federal Highway Administration that we would be making a later submittal as far as those shaded projects were concerned.

MAG has amended their TIP and the changes which need to be made to the STIP are included in two amendments. Amendment A is included in the agenda packets, and copies of Amendment B were distributed by Clint. Amendment B deals with projects around the US-189 (Novell) Interchange, and also includes MAG's conformity determination for the STIP. WFRC is submitting the proposed changes to the STIP for Commission approval.

Byron Baranowski from MAG explained why the Amendments were separated into A and B. Amendment A is mainly the projects which were left off of the general TIP; Amendment B contains two projects over which there was some concern that if the demonstration projects were not funded, or if there was any trouble with them, it would affect their TIP. For that reason they separated the Novell Interchange project from the other Amendment so they would still have an approved TIP even if somewhere in the process the Novell project could not be funded.

Clint explained that under normal circumstances they would have given the information on Amendment B to the Commission earlier, but the Department had promised Provo City officials, who have been very concerned about the Novell project, that as soon as MAG submitted this information to the Department it would be passed on to the Commission as expeditiously as possible, and they were trying to fulfill that commitment.

Howard Richardson commented that MAG's strategy in putting the Amendments into A and B was good. Clint said his understanding from his staff is that FHWA still has questions and problems with Amendment B and may not approve it, so he concurred that the two amendments was probably a good strategy.

Director Zwick asked Clint if the airport road project included in Amendment B was also part of the Demonstration Project. Clint didn't think it was.

Commissioner Lewis asked why the Project Data sheet from Amendment B (page 3) was not filled out. Mr. Baranowski replied he didn't prepare the TIP Amendment form, but he thought it was probably because it was unclear to those who did prepare the forms just what the data was because the projects have changed so much, especially on the interchange. He noted the information does appear on the original TIP they created.

Howard Richardson referred to the fact the airport road in Provo appears on the additions to both 1994 and 1995; does that means it needs funds both years in order to complete it? Mr. Baranowski replied he thought that was so.

Clint said they are requesting that the Commission adopt the changes in Amendments A and B, based on the MAG TIP, to amend our Statewide TIP and to find their Amendments in conformance with the air quality plans.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to adopt the MAG Amendments A and B to the TIP as presented by Clint. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

Approval to adopt Amendments A and B to Mountainlands Association of Governments 1994 Transportation Improvement Program, and to amend the 1994 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program; further to concur that MAG's Amendments A and B are in conformance with air quality plans.

Commissioner Lewis asked about the air quality conformity for MAG. Clint explained their TIP does include the air quality conformity, but they don't have the air quality conformity analysis completed for their long range plan, and that will be brought to the Commission when it is completed.

TIP/STIP PROCESSChairman Taylor asked Clint if he anticipated the TIP/STIP process would become a little easier in the future. Clint responded that the many different programs which staff has brought to the Commission in different stages this year included the STIP, then an amendment which had to do with the projects the Joint Highway Committee programs, amendments from MAG, amendments from CMPO, and amendments based on the Enhancements Program. He said they feel they have all these different entities backed up in their process, so the projects should come forward and be included in the original STIP submittal next August; that is staff's goal.

US-89, Weber Basin Water Conservancy District Water LineClint explained that District 1 had brought information to headquarters about a water line located in US-89, Mountain Road, which is in disrepair. Weber Basin Water Conservancy District has expressed an interest in replacing the water line at this time and has asked UDOT to share in the cost on a 50/50 basis. Clint pointed out that if we were to wait until our environmental impact statement was complete on Mountain Road and we were to do a project up there, we would probably bear the full cost of replacing the water line.

He said that staff had discussed the 50/50 proposal with the Commission previously, and the Commission gave District 1 license to negotiate an agreement with Weber Basin, and they have done that. The total cost for the project is estimated to be $1,175,000, making UDOT's share $587,500. He requested that the Commission program $600,000 in State Construction Funds to take care of the replacement of the water line at this time.

Clint said Howard Richardson has asked that the agreement be modified to say that we will participate with relocating the water line outside of the prism of the road, but any future relocation of the water line, or construction work to it, would be at the sole expense of Weber Basin. Howard indicated he had not actually talked to anyone else about that, but if the Commission agreed he would pursue the matter.

Commissioner Weston asked if the total length of the water line impacted Mountain Road, or is some of it off the road. Dyke replied there is a small section which is off the road and out of the area. Commissioner Lewis asked who drafted the agreement. Clint said he didn't know if it was Lynn Zollinger or Weber Basin. Commissioner Weston asked if the Attorney General's office had looked at the agreement. Clint replied it would be approved by the Attorney General's Office before Director Zwick signs it.

Clint said they were not asking for approval of the agreement--that still needed to be fine-tuned--they were requesting the Commission to program the $600,000 in State Construction Funds.

Howard said one issue on the agreement which needs to be made clear is whether we are going to participate in 50% of the cost, no matter what the actual cost turns out to be, or whether we will limit ourselves to $600,000. The actual cost could turn out to be more than the cost currently estimated. If there is a cost increase, as the agreement is currently written we would be responsible for 50% of that increase. Commissioner Weston said we already know it will cost more because it states "plus design and construction management." Clint explained the agreement indicates that design and construction management is the responsibility of Weber Basin, but UDOT will assist with design to ensure the placement of the water line is agreeable to future highway improvements. Commissioner Larkin suggested that if it's going to be our responsibility 100% in the future, and we can do it for 50% of the cost now, we should do so.

There was additional discussion of the agreement. Commissioner Lewis said if it's the Commission's intent to limit the total amount spent on the project we would have to indicate that in the agreement, or make it a condition of the programming of the funds. He felt it was to our advantage to do the project for 50% of the cost, even if it exceeds the estimate. But the matter does need to be made clear.

Clint asked if the Commission felt good about a provision being included in the agreement that any future relocation would be solely at the expense of Weber Basin, and the Commission agreed they did.

Commissioner Weston said we are anticipating building considerable frontage roads outside the present right-of-way boundary; where will the pipe be located in relationship to those frontage roads? Dyke replied much of the pipe will be located along the outer edge of our expressway right-of-way. Commissioner Weston said he felt there would be some problems with the pipeline and the frontage roads, and who will buy the right-of-way. Clint said he didn't really have an answer to that, but District 1 has been asked to make sure the pipe line location would be compatible with the construction of the expressway. Dyke commented that was why they wanted to be sure to add the provision to the agreement that any future work on the pipeline would be at Weber Basin's expense, in case they missed at some of the locations and had to relocate it because of some footings, etc. then they would bear the expense instead of us.

Howard pointed out that the agreement has a statement which reads: "Whereas, Weber Basin will be responsible for obtaining easements and right-of-ways for the relocated pipeline, to be reimbursed at a later date when UDOT uses the alignment for a frontage road." He explained they expect to acquire their own easements and rights-of-way outside our highway right-of-way, at lease in some cases, and if that area turns out to be a future frontage road right-of-way they will be reimbursed. Howard said he wasn't sure we wanted to do that, but we wouldn't have clear ownership to all of their right-of-way if we didn't buy it, so we would lose some control on what we could do on that easement with other things in the future. Commissioner Larkin said if they buy the easement for their pipeline, he didn't think they would need to be reimbursed for it; it still has the pipeline in it.

Dyke said if Weber Basin is the owner of an easement in the future, we will have to either clear them out, or have an agreement with them to handle them in that right-of-way. Bob Fox suggested if we eliminated "to be reimbursed at a later date . . ." then it could be negotiated when the matter comes up in the future. The Commission agreed that was a good suggestion.

Director Zwick asked if the Commission was instructing the Department not to sign the agreement until they have eliminated from the last Whereas paragraph the reference "to be reimbursed at a later date," and to add an Item 6 that would address that Weber Basin would pay for all future realignments. Commissioner Lewis said he meant that as a suggestion, rather than an instruction. Director Zwick thought it was a good suggestion.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to approve programming $600,000 toward the water line relocation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

Approval to program $600,000 in State Construction Funds for relocation of Weber Basin Water Conservancy District's water line on US-89, Mountain Road; project cost to be shared on a 50/50 basis with Weber Basin.

Commissioner Weston suggested that the Attorney General's Office take a very close look at the agreement before the Department signs it.

Public CommentsChairman Taylor said he wanted a Public Comments item to be on all future agendas to provide any citizens who may be at the meeting a specified opening or time to address the Commission.

Fillmore/Holden Rest Area UpdateHoward Richardson reported that the Mayor from Fillmore was at the Statewide Planning Meeting which was held on November 3, and he continued to exhibit his interest in having the rest area facility in or near his town.

Howard said, in talking with Commissioner Larkin earlier, the Commissioner had learned of some of the requirements from the Federal side about the interests of safety, and we need to have a place for the trucks to be accommodated as well as the cars. The existing rest area in Fillmore just doesn't do that because of its limited size, so he sensed that the existing location is probably not going to be a workable idea.

He said the Mayor did suggest another location right at the north Fillmore Interchange which he thought might be a workable site where both directions of traffic could be brought to a single side of the interchange and all the facilities placed at that one location. That site does have access to water and sewer, which is very critical.

Howard said on the way home from the meeting that night, they looked at the space at that location, and they did have some concern about the size of the property and whether it's large enough to accommodate the facility. That will have to be looked at more closely.

He said there are some economic advantages to having the facility on one side, including the operation of a just a single facility, instead of construction and operation of a separate facility for each direction of traffic, however, it will have to be studied more closely. We must consider the modifications we would have to make on the interchange in order to allow the trucks to have that movement; it might actually necessitate replacing that structure. We will have to look at the numbers to determine if it will be more cost effective to do it that way.

Chairman Taylor commented it's a real plus to have the water and sewer there. Commissioner Lewis added there's also more security having it loca
ted closer to businesses rather than isolated along the highway.

Howard referred to the spacing of the rest areas along the interstate and said Planning has been asked to review the 1990 Rest Area Study to decide if we really like the spacing which has been suggested through that area. We are spaced a bit closer than the study said; going southbound from Fillmore there is a rest area at Cove Fort, and going northbound there is one in American Fork, but we do have a site hear Nephi. Staff feels we need to review the spacing through that entire area. Commissioner Larkin commented it would be better to move it farther north than south. Howard agreed and said it would be better to move closer to Scipio to address the spacing more adequately. Dyke commented that Mills Junction is about right in the middle. Commissioner Larkin said there would be water at Scipio; there's nothing at Mills Junction.

Commissioner Larkin asked where in the Fillmore Interchange the Mayor suggested the rest area should be located, and Howard said it would be in the southeast quadrant. Coming off the interstate, there is a vacant tract of land just before you get to the Best Western Motel. Commissioner Larkin asked if there was a possibilty of acquiring more land if there wasn't a sufficient amount right there and Howard said he didn't have an answer to that right now. That property is bounded on one side by I-15, the other side by the Best Western Motel, and it's fronted by the curved road that's the main street into Fillmore.

Commissioner Larkin and Weston asked about the possibility of the northwest quadrant of the interchange for the location; there's a lot of land there. Howard replied all the locations there could and should be examined, but the Mayor had suggested the southeast quadrant. Commissioner Lewis added that the Mayor suggested there was water there already, and sewer fairly close. Commissioner Weston commented that site was not an easily accessible area to get into with all the other congestion there.

Howard concluded that the matter of that rest area is under active review and staff is proceeding with research on a location, but they don't have a final, definitive recommendation as yet.

Funding Update from Washington, D. C. ConferenceI-15 Corridor, Novell Interchange, US-89 Mountain Road, US-6 Spanish Fork CanyonDirector Zwick reported that he and Clint Topham just spent several days in Washington, D. C. attending a conference on the Clean Air Amendment and its relationship to ISTEA. It basically concerned mobilization along with clean air and how those two are in any way compatible.

In the off hours they were able to spend some time with our own Utah delegation back there. However, the principal objective was to get before the House Public Works Committee, specifically Nick Rahall and Norman Mineta. They were able to spend about an hour with Ken House and Roger Slagle, two ranking staff people on the Public Works Committee on the House side, and presented three projects for authorization: (1) I-15 and its defined scope by our General Development Plan, including the mass transit piece which may be associated with that and likely included in authorization, but separate and apart, (2) the Novell Interchange, and (3) US-89, Mountain Road. The Director said the idea was to get all three projects before them, and they presented them a packet of information which defined those projects.

He said they were very receptive when they understood the total magnitude of those through FY-98 was not the billion-dollar-plus cost which we had talked about originally, but in fact about one-fourth of that amount. Director Zwick said they encouraged him and Clint about the likelihood of getting the projects authorized.

The follow-up the next day was with Dale Davis, who is the Secretary to the House Appropriations Committee to Transportation, Representative Carr's secretary. He was very favorable, also. The Director pointed out that they had marked us once before and then it moved through the Carr-Mineta battle and was taken from the Bill. He said the idea was that all of this would be advanced with the NHS Bill and there would be some authorization there.

Director Zwick said they spent some time with Pat McCann who does the same thing on the Senate side in the Department of Public Works; he is Secretary to that Committee, and a staff member with Senator Lautenberg. They spent time with Gene Lauver who also works with that Environmental and Public Works Committee on the Senate side. Basically they got all three projects before them with the idea that there would be some authorization and, hopefully, some funding.

He said in the process it was apparent that it's not going to be easy, but our overmatch in Utah would be of substantial benefit to us in terms of whether or not it would be recognized and receive some funding through FY-98. Pat McCann was quick to point out that there were $1.4 billion in requests that were authorized projects to which the Senate gave $200,000-plus, so they are a long ways away. To bring these three new projects on is one thing, but to realistically ever see funding materialize is very difficult to assess. He said they will keep working with Representative Carr; he is very much in favor of seeing our projects on and funded. The other side of that is to obligate State funding for a 50% match, which is an aggressive over-match, but he thinks it's what we've said we would be willing to do in Utah if we could get funding.

Director Zwick suggested after the previous day's discussion about US-6 in Spanish Fork Canyon we may want to suggest that that be an authorized project as well.

The Director said they also had a good meeting with Jim Hansen, and they met with Senator Bennett's people and with Senator Hatch's people, but the Senators were both, by demand, on the floor.

Commissioner Weston thanked Director Zwick and said that was an ambitious tour he and Clint had undertaken. Chairman Taylor agreed and said every opportunity to meet face to face with our own delegation and other members of Congress is beneficial to us.

National Highway System Map, Addition of US-666, US-89 and US-50Director Zwick said they also spent some time with Joan Garvey who is the Deputy Administrator to FHWA and had a good experience there. They also looked one more time at the National Highway System maps which he, Howard Richardson, and Sheldon McConkie saw in Detroit at AASHTO. They have included US-666 on the NHS System at this time. US-89 through Logan Canyon and Garden City and on to the Idaho border has not been put on yet, but may be. At the Detroit Conference, Secretary Pina observed a clear doughnut on the map and asked what was being done in western Utah, and indicated his desire to see something filled in there. That would specifically be our Highway 50 connecting with Nevada's extension of that, and Nevada has already indicated that they would be in favor of that as part of the NHS System. So, it's very possible that they will come back and add both US-89 and US-50; they've already added US-666.

Commissioner Weston asked what more we could do to encourage that, and Director Zwick said we could continue to encourage it with Joan Garvey and with Dean Carlson. He said they were not all that ambivalent in their presentation to them; they indicated they would like to see it done, and our priority would be US-89 first, and US-50 second. If the Secretary is pushing for US-50, maybe they'll come back on the other side and encourage that US-89 be put on. Commissioner Weston asked the Director if they had gotten an indication from anyone he talked to that the state of Idaho had made any request concerning that. The Director replied yes, Idaho had. In fact, they spent some time with Dwight Bower on that specific issue while in Detroit, and Idaho did request it. We are seeing some support from Idaho now on US-89 and also from Nevada on US-50. It's very possible with support from the surrounding states that they will grant us our highways.

Clint agreed and said he frankly felt US-89 would be put on. It is on is Wyoming, and with Idaho's support now he thinks it will be added. Commissioner Weston said we had to do some Chamber of Commerce work up there to get some letters to the Idaho DOT, because they weren't even thinking about it. He said he didn't do it personally, but asked some people from Montpelier, Idaho to make the contact, and the impression he got back from them was that the DOT didn't even think it was important until it was brought to their attention. Director Zwick commented that Dwight Bower is the new Director at the Idaho Department of Transportation, and is taking a lot of experience with him from his former position with the Colorado DOT.

UDOT to Host 1997 AASHTO ConferenceDirector Zwick announced that UDOT will host the 1997 Annual AASHTO Convention. Boston and New Orleans were formidable competition.

Commissioner Wayne S. Winters' Retirement DinnerChairman Taylor noted that invitations have all been sent out to a large number of people for Commissioner Winters' retirement Dinner on November 18, at the Red Lion Hotel. Commissioner Winters served 24-1/2 years on the Transportation Commission.

Next Commission MeetingChairman Taylor announced the next regular Commission Meeting will be on November 19, 1993 in Salt Lake City, and the only meeting the following month will be on December 10, in Salt Lake City.

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

The following Commission members, staff and others were in attendance: